The New York Times reports on negotiations concerning the sharing of traveler data between European Union countries and the United States:

BRUSSELS — Raising the stakes in a trans-Atlantic struggle over data privacy, an influential lawmaker said Tuesday that the European Parliament should reject a deal between the European Union and the United States that aims at sharing information about air passengers as a way to fight serious crime and terrorism.

Sophie in ’t Veld, a Dutch member of the Parliament who previously helped lead efforts to block an initiative for sharing banking information with the United States, said the air passenger deal failed to address earlier concerns raised by the Parliament, and was incompatible with other European legislation. [...]

A majority of E.U. member governments approved the air passenger deal in December, although Germany and Austria abstained because they still had serious concerns about the effects of the deal on privacy.

Ms. in ’t Veld’s recommendation is not binding, but if she gathers enough support the Parliament could block the agreement when it comes to a vote in April. Read more »

Last week, Google announced changes in its privacy policies that will affect users of its services, such as search, Gmail, Google+ and YouTube. Advocates and legislators questioned the changes, saying that there were privacy issues, and criticized the Internet services giant (Congress pdf; archive pdf) for not including an opt-out provision; Google said that users who objected could stop using its services and move their data elsewhere.

Now, CNet reports that Google is responding to the criticisms in a letter (pdf) to federal lawmakers and a blog post. CNet reports:

Google announced plans to rewrite its privacy policy last week. The revision will give the company explicit rights to “combine personal information” across the many products and services it currently offers.

“We’re not collecting more data about you. Our new policy simply makes it clear that we use data to refine and improve your experience on Google–whichever products or services you use,” Google said at the time. “This is something we have already been doing for a long time. We’re making things simpler and we’re trying to be upfront about it. Period.” Read more »

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan recognized International Data Privacy Day and released the latest Information Security and Security Breach Notification Guidance (Illinois AG pdf; archive pdf). “In releasing her Information Security & Security Breach Response Guide, Madigan encouraged businesses and government agencies to establish an Information Security Program to understand the scope of the personal information they collect and to train employees how to properly maintain and handle information to prevent security breaches, which in turn can help prevent identity theft,” a press release said.

Here’s information from the guidance’s introduction:

The Illinois Personal Information Protection Act requires notification to Illinois residents in the event of an unauthorized acquisition of their personal information. Read more »

Last week, we discussed the US Supreme Court ruling in the case of United States v. Jones. In a unanimous decision (Supreme Court pdf; archive pdf), the court held that police do need a valid warrant to place a GPS device on a vehicle. The majority opinion was premised on the fact that there was a physical trespass, or intrusion, by putting the device on the vehicle. It did not decide an issue of privacy, and a New York Times editorial criticizes the Supreme Court ruling for being too narrow:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that the police violated the Constitution when they hid a Global Positioning System tracking device on the car of Antoine Jones and monitored his movements for 28 days. It put law enforcement on notice that most GPS electronic surveillance will be suspect without a judge’s warrant.

As welcome as the ruling was, the court left too many questions unanswered. It did not say how long this kind of surveillance can go on before requiring a warrant or what types of crimes justify GPS monitoring. It did not say what the rule would be if the police had tracked Mr. Jones with a technology not hidden on his car. Read more »

In the last few months, there have been reports about how smartphone users’ data could be quietly gathered and used by companies via software from a company called Carrier IQ. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), chairman of the subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote to Carrier IQ demanding answers about how this technology affects cellphone users’ privacy. European officials are investigating the company for possible privacy violations. Carrier IQ spoke with the Wall Street Journal about its software.

Now, the Hill reports that Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass), a co-chairman of the House caucus on privacy, has released a discussion draft (pdf) of the Mobile Device Privacy Act, which would require telecommunications providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Sprint to reveal if they are using data-tracking software such as Carrier IQ on mobile devices:

Consumers would have to consent to any data collection or transmission, and third parties would have to have policies in place to secure the data they collect.

Companies that want to transfer data to third parties would have to file applications with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Read more »

The Washington Post reports on a lawsuit by employees at the Food and Drug Administration over the privacy of their personal e-mail. The story is a good reminder that technology can allow employers to see and record whatever you do on a work computer. There can be questions as to the legality of employers doing so in various cases, such as this one:

The Food and Drug Administration secretly monitored the personal e-mail of a group of its own scientists and doctors after they warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that they believed posed unacceptable risks to patients, government documents show.

The surveillance — detailed in e-mails and memos unearthed by six of the scientists and doctors, who filed a lawsuit against the FDA in U.S. District Court in Washington last week — took place over two years as the plaintiffs accessed their personal Gmail accounts from government computers.

Information garnered this way eventually contributed to the harassment or dismissal of all six of the FDA employees, the suit alleges. All had worked in an office responsible for reviewing devices for cancer screening and other purposes.

Copies of the e-mails show that, starting in January 2009, the FDA intercepted communications with congressional staffers and draft versions of whistleblower complaints complete with editing notes in the margins. [...] Read more »